F-104A/G vs F-104S

[KJ_Lesnick]

It's a simple question... just one of wing-area.  I know the span.  I'm curious if it actually had the same area (higher aspect ratio), or if they actually increased the wing area a skosh.

[sandiego89]

I believe the basic wings are the same dimensionally, but the G (and S) is a stronger wing than the A, and there were some changes in flap and slat operation.  There were some proposals for bigger winged Starfighters, and the NF-104 with the rocket engine and the wing tip extensions, but I believe the dimensions was consistent on others.  Some sources may vary a bit in dimensions with tip rails, tip tanks, tip sidewinders. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I believe the basic wings are the same dimensionally

The S has a wingspan 2" larger than the rest of the F-104s.  I'm not sure if the tip-rails and stuff somehow added additional span to the aircraft (though it didn't always carry tip-rails, sometimes it carried tanks).  The wing-area is listed as being the same, but the F-5A's wing area was actually about 2% larger with the leading-edge root-extensions it had.

but the G (and S) is a stronger wing than the A, and there were some changes in flap and slat operation.

If I recall they could be extended at airspeeds up to 450 knots, at 0.85 mach, a few F-104's could extend from 540-550 knots, and up to 1.8 .  I'm honestly at a loss why they didn't put that on all the F-104's from the start unless there was some technological limitation (the flaps & droops had a profound effect on the wings lifting capability, even without BLC) -- especially when one considers that Lockheed had an airplane in the past that lacked turning performance at first, and fixed it with maneuvering flaps (P-38).

[sandiego89]

I'm honestly at a loss why they didn't put that on all the F-104's from the start unless there was some technological limitation (the flaps & droops had a profound effect on the wings lifting capability, even without BLC) -- especially when one considers that Lockheed had an airplane in the past that lacked turning performance at first, and fixed it with maneuvering flaps (P-38).

Perhaps a the early versions were designed as point interceptors, take off and landing characteristics, and turning were lower on the priority scale.  It was not designed as a dogfighter.  As the type was being considered for low level nuclear strike as the G, it would be much heavier and even "hotter" in the pattern, and would be operating on smaller European runways, it was clear that additional lift would be required.     

[KJ_Lesnick]

Perhaps a the early versions were designed as point interceptors, take off and landing characteristics, and turning were lower on the priority scale.  It was not designed as a dogfighter

As I recall...

• The F-104 was inspired by the Korean War: The MiG-15 could out climb, fly higher, possibly sustain a higher g-load in turns; pilots wanted a plane that would be able to climb-faster, accelerate better, and fly higher than the enemy aircraft.
  
• The USAF allowed Lockheed to develop such an aircraft, and even allowed them to omit certain systems that they didn't need, even when the USAF would normally have required them
  
• The USAF at some point amended requirements for the aircraft to also be usable for point defense: This was compatible with the acceleration, climb, and high altitude performance, and stipulated sustained mach 2 operation.  The radar might have become a requirement at this point (though it wasn't suitable for all-weather operation).  The aircraft still seemed to be intended to be a fighter, which would also favor a good rate of turn and roll-rate.
  

Despite changes in requirements for endurance at speed, I'm not sure how much speed requirements were changed: Speed was often a requirement in aircraft design as speed would provide the means to initiate an attack more easily, run-down opponents, disengage when combined with acceleration; climb-performance allows you to run-down an opponent on the vertical and disengage.  This prioritization would change when missiles entered the picture, but...

As the type was being considered for low level nuclear strike as the G, it would be much heavier and even "hotter" in the pattern, and would be operating on smaller European runways, it was clear that additional lift would be required.

The basic flaps hadn't really changed in shape from the F-104A.  What changed was that they could be deployed at higher speeds, this wasn't for takeoff and landing performance, it was to enhance agility.